Teaching Lab All Partners Report
2020-2021 Report
Background
In SY20-21, Teaching Lab administered online diagnostic and follow-up surveys of educators participating in Teaching Lab’s professional learning in order to measure growth and improvement in three different areas: 1) Educator Mindsets and Beliefs, 2) School Environment, and 3) Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge. There were 547 educators who completed the diagnostic survey, 120 educators who completed the follow-up survey, and 34 educators who completed both.
Summary of Results
Methodology and Presentation of Results
We have provided two types of results for each section: The results in the first three columns of the table refer to the overall group averages. We provide the group average for the diagnostic and follow-up surveys as well as the percentage point change (increase or decrease) over this time. It is important to note that the group that completed the diagnostic survey and the group that completed the follow-up survey are different in size. The results in the fourth column reflect the percentage of educators who improved their responses or sustained the highest level response from the diagnostic to follow-up survey. This group of educators is the same for both surveys and is smaller in size.
Section 1: Mindsets and Beliefs
Educators were asked a series of questions about their mindsets toward instruction and students on a 5-point Likert scale from 1- Strongly disagree to 5- Strongly agree. The questions focused on four core constructs surrounding mindsets and beliefs, specifically the recognition of race and culture, growth mindsets, high expectations, and taking accountability for equitable instruction.
1
| Educators’ Averages Scores on Equitable Mindsets and Beliefs, by Survey Administration | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average Scores on Equitable Mindsets & Beliefs | ||||
| Overall score | 68% | 71% | +3% | 80% |
| Recognition of race & culture | 33% | 34% | +1% | 52% |
| Holding growth mindsets | 53% | 61% | +8% | 74% |
| Having high expectations and beliefs | 96% | 94% | −2% | 96% |
| Taking accountability for equitable instruction | 92% | 93% | +1% | 97% |
|
1
Note: The number of observations varies between items from 116 to 547
2
n = 34
|
||||
The plot illustrates educators’ average scores from the diagnostic and follow-up surveys, which corresponds to the information in the first three columns of the table. Orange represents the diagnostic scores, and blue represents the follow-up scores. The arrows represent the directionality, showing an increase or decrease in the average scores.
Section 2: School Environment
Educators were asked about their school environment, including culture and climate on a 5-point Likert scale from 1- Strongly disagree to 5- Strongly agree. Specifically, educators were asked about trust and connectedness to other educators, their role in shaping their own professional learning, and confidence in implementing the curriculum in a way that maximizes positive impact for student learning.
2
| Educators’ Perceptions of School Culture and Climate, by Survey Administration, by Survey Administration | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of Educators with Positive Perceptions of School Culture and Climate | ||||
| Overall score | 66% | 64% | −2% | 84% |
| Trust in fellow teachers | 83% | 72% | −11% | 88% |
| Connectedness to fellow teachers | 75% | 70% | −5% | 90% |
| Have influence over professional learning | 36% | 38% | +2% | 67% |
| I am confident that I am implementing the curriculum in a way that maximizes positive impact for student learning | 68% | 74% | +6% | 90% |
|
1
Note: The number of observations varies between items from 109 to 440
2
n = 29
|
||||
The plot illustrates the shifts in educators’ reported culture and climate, which corresponds to the information in the first three columns of the table. Orange represents the percentage of educators with positive perceptions in the diagnostic survey, and blue represents the percentage in the follow-up survey. The arrows represent the directionality, showing an increase or decrease in the percent of educators who agreed or strongly agreed with the items.
Section 3: Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Educators were asked a series of questions about their knowledge of instructional shifts and evidence-based instructional practices in their content area.
Section 3a: ELA Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge
In ELA, the questions focused on seven core constructs, as shown in the table.
| Educators’ Average Scores on ELA Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge, by Survey Administration | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average Scores of Educators with ELA Content & Pedagogical Content Knowledge | ||||
| Overall score | 59% | 66% | +8% | 72% |
| ELA instructional shifts | 51% | 58% | +6% | 64% |
| Fluency | 52% | 58% | +7% | 65% |
| Text complexity | 58% | 73% | +15% | 79% |
| Close reading | 66% | 72% | +6% | 76% |
| Building knowledge | 52% | 67% | +15% | 74% |
| Supporting students with unfinished learning | 68% | 70% | +2% | 72% |
|
1
Note: The number of observations varies between items from 69 to 408
2
n = 10
|
||||
The plot illustrates the shift in educators’ average scores for ELA content and pedagogical content knowledge, which corresponds to the information in the first three columns of the table. Orange represents the diagnostic scores, and blue represents the follow-up scores. The arrows represent the directionality, showing an increase or decrease of average scores.
Section 3b: Math Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge
In Mathematics, the questions focused on four core constructs, as shown in the table.
| Educators’ Average Scores on Math Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge, by Survey Administration | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average Scores of Educators with Math Content & Pedagogical Content Knowledge | ||||
| Overall score | 60% | 63% | +3% | 69% |
| Math instructional shifts | 53% | 53% | +0% | 62% |
| Equitable Math Instruction | 72% | 78% | +6% | 82% |
| Supporting students with unfinished learning | 65% | 72% | +7% | 75% |
| Effective Teaching Practices | 56% | 54% | −1% | 60% |
|
1
Note: The number of observations varies between items from 51 to 129
2
n = 24
|
||||
The plot illustrates the shift in educators’ average scores for Math content and pedagogical content knowledge, which corresponds to the information in the first three columns of the table. Orange represents the diagnostic scores, and blue represents the follow-up scores. The arrows represent the directionality, showing an increase or decrease of average scores.
Section 4: Teacher Observations by Administrators
Coaches, leaders, and/or administrators were asked about the areas they focus on when observing teachers in general and also whether they observe differences in teaching practices between teachers who have participated in Teaching Lab professional learning and teachers who have not.
First, coaches, leaders, and/or administrators were asked whether they focus on the following areas when observing teachers: The lesson is focused on a high-quality text or task. The questions and tasks address the analytical thinking required by the grade-level standards. All students have opportunities to engage in the work of the lesson.
| Observation Practices of Coaches, Leaders, and Administrators, by Survey Administration, by Survey Administration | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of Coaches, Leaders, and Administrators who Agreed or Strongly Agreed | ||||
| When observing teachers, I focus on… Overall score | 91% | 85% | −6% | 91% |
| Whether the lesson is focused on a high-quality text or task | 89% | 82% | −7% | 91% |
| Whether the questions and tasks address the analytical thinking required by the grade-level standards | 89% | 91% | +2% | 91% |
| Whether all students have opportunities to engage in the work of the lesson | 94% | 82% | −12% | 91% |
|
1
Note: The number of observations varies between items from 11 to 107
2
n = 4
|
||||
The plot illustrates the shifts in coaches, leaders, and/or administrators’ reported observation practices, which corresponds to the information in the first three columns of the table. Orange represents the percentage who always or almost always focus on these aspects in the diagnostic survey, and blue represents the percentage in the follow-up survey. The arrows represent the directionality, showing an increase or decrease in the percent of educators who always or almost always focus on these aspects.
Coaches, leaders, and/or administrators were also asked to compare teaching practices between Teaching Lab participants and non-Teaching Lab participants in the follow-up survey. They were asked about the same three areas above.
| Differences in Teaching Practices between Teaching Lab Participants and Non-participants, as Reported by Coaches, Leaders, and Administrators | ||
|---|---|---|
| TL Teachers1 | Non-TL Teachers1 | |
| The lesson is focused on a high-quality text or task | 100% | 55% |
| The questions and tasks address the analytical thinking required by the grade-level standards | 82% | 0% |
| All students have opportunities to engage in the work of the lesson | 73% | 9% |
|
1
n = 11
|
||
The graph illustrates the differences in teaching practices between teachers who have participated in Teaching Lab professional learning and teachers who have not, as reported by the coaches, leaders, and/or administrators.
Section 5: Lab Leaders
Lab Leaders were asked about their engagement in different activities, such as leading professional learning, leading PLC meetings, coaching teachers, sharing information and resources, and improving their own instructional practices.
| % of Lab Leaders who engaged in the activity1 | |
|---|---|
| Improved my own instructional practice | 33% |
| Led PLC meetings for teachers | 17% |
| Coached teachers | 50% |
| Shared information or resources with teachers | 50% |
|
1
n = 6
|
|
The graph below illustrates the Lab Leaders participation in different activities.
Section 6: Student Work
Student work has been analyzed to see if there was a difference in outcomes following the implementation of professional learning. The following figures illustrate that difference.
Section 7: Participant Feedback
Looking at participant feedback from All Partners we see good scores across the board:
| Teaching Lab Performance on Participant Feedback Questions for All Partners | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How Likely Are You To Apply This Learning To Your Practice In The Next 4-6 Weeks? | I felt a sense of community with the other participants in this course even though we were meeting virtually. | This course helped me navigate remote and/or hybrid learning during COVID-19. | % Who Say Activities Of Today's Session Were Well-Designed To Help Me Learn | S/He Effectively Built A Community Of Learners |
| 89% | 90% | 67% | 68% | 91% |
Finally, looking at the textual feedback from participants we also see a lot of positive feedback, even when people are giving tips for improvement
Comments on Improving Experience
| Quotes |
|---|
"maybe have a way to pick facilitators during the break |
"During the break out session it was hard to get started if |
"Having time embedded to do some of the unit study tool work |
"Better access to the materials at home. It seemed we had to |
"seeing a click of this activity being implemented within and |
"There is a lot of material to go over in a short amount of |
"Some of the work took a long time. I have planning for |
"I didn't like the way some of the people in the breakout |
"Possibly more time to explore protocols and the "Round" |
Additional Comments
| Quotes |
|---|
"I wish more adjustments had been made for people at late |
"Both of the facilitators were very kind and welcoming. I |
"As an admin, I find that the requirements were overwhelming |
"Thank you for creating a collaborative culture where |
"Thanks for making this a math experience. It was long days |
"Stacy really knows her content and how to pull it apart. As |
"I was glad I took the course, I thought they could have used |
"Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into |
info@teachinglab.org
Comments on what Went Well
"The opportunity to learn, think or work independently and
then collaborate with with my colleagues."
"Introduction of IPG and providing appropriate time to learn
and calibrate the tool"
"I really enjoyed the asynchronous work and thought it was
incredibly relevant and helpful. The research sited in the
article will be helpful in convincing teachers about the
importance, and necessity, of engaging student discourse."
"Being able to breakdown guidebooks into expectations and
individual lesson plans."
"Learning new knowledge about the shifts in the curriculum;
the modules and how each unit builds on another up to the
performance task."
"The zoom meeting with breakout session. pre self assessment
and post self assessment."
"The facilitators are wonderful. They created a safe space
where I felt I could share my feelings about a topic without
any judgement. It was also great to be reminded of the
importance of student discourse."
"The schedule is a perfect combination of synchronous and
asynchronous learning. I appreciate having time to work
with, and discuss, new concepts."
"I think asynchronous work matched well with what our focus/
EQ was. Really helped."